Evil by Geezer

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"So oxytocin levels respond to fairness and trust in addition to cooperation, and therefor system that fosters oxytocin production is "good", while a system that reduces it is "evil"?"

Pretty much. Again, the reason is b/c AFAIK there are no rational universal definitions for good and evil. They are biologically-based values we assign to events.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 25, 2006 5:23 PM

Citizen,

you win by sheer post volume.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 25, 2006 10:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Citizen,

you win by sheer post volume.

what sort of reply is that?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 25, 2006 10:53 PM

KANEMAN

"Bacteria manage with mutations and fast generation cycles"

Jesus Christ, is that your answer to everything you limp-wristed ass sniffer? Make sure you post something about bacterium in that dumb-ass Dixie Chick thread....Well, you should......

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 26, 2006 4:11 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
When you said that you thought Hitler was "evil", what did you mean?

He reduced my oxytocin level?

Actually, I do want to talk to Rue about that later.

As to Hitler. Well, first I was always told Hitler was evil. It's pretty much part of my education. In fact, Hitler, and the Nazi philosophy in general, were used as examples of what is evil. Most any Baby Boomer would have had a similar experience.

As I started reading about and researching WWII, I found that history (Even considering "history is written by the winners") pretty much confirmed what I had been told. Aryan superiority, death camps, massive reprisals against civilians. Things that were morally repugnant to me on such a scale that I had to admit that describing Hitler as "evil" fit the bill for me.

As time goes on people learn and change. Some of my views on what is moral and what isn't have changed. I haven't seen anything to change my opinion of Hitler, so he's still evil to me.

But it's pretty easy to decide that Hitler's evil - a slam dunk. Even so, I bet people have a lot of differing opinions on the primary reason to consider him evil.

Maybe "Evil is what I think it is" isn't so far off. Try "Evil is what I think is exceedingly morally wrong." Of course, "exceedingly morally wrong" is also different for each person.

Quote:
But that doesn't keep us from exploring the idea, does it?

Not at all. That's what folks have been doing all through this thread. Maybe I'll take a read and try to condense some of the discussion into a few general observations. If you do that too, maybe we'll have something new to argue about

.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 26, 2006 4:42 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"So oxytocin levels respond to fairness and trust in addition to cooperation, and therefor system that fosters oxytocin production is "good", while a system that reduces it is "evil"?" - SignyM

Pretty much. Again, the reason is b/c AFAIK there are no rational universal definitions for good and evil. They are biologically-based values we assign to events. - Rue

Would it be more accurate to say, "oxytocin levels respond to an individual's perception of fairness and trust in addition to cooperation..."? Otherwise, there would have to be a method for the oxytocin producing glands(?) to identify fairness, trust, etc. directly. I don't see how this could occur.

In this case aren't we're back to "Evil is what I percieve it to be, based on my experience, personality, etc., and this perception of good and evil stimulates or reduces my production of oxytocin."?

It's easy to see how the release of oxytocin as a reward mechanism could support species survival. "I feel better when I'm hunting with Ogg, because I trust him to not panic and get us all killed if the big cat attacks. When Gaak goes with us, I don't feel so good, because I've seen him panic before. Let's take Ogg and leave Gaak to tend the fire." But your body's oxytocin producing gland(?) can't make the evaluation of Ogg's trustworthyness, or Gaak's lack by itself. It must depend on your perceptions of Ogg and Gaak's past actions to cue or suspend oxytocin production.

Of course, your opinion of Ogg may be based on the hunting stories he tells, and they may be just stories, and he actually will bug out at the first sign of danger.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 26, 2006 5:01 AM

Citizen,

You posted a lot to respond to, and I don't have a lot of time. I don't think you have a strong handle on the situation, you're not completely in the dark, you have a point or two, but you still don't have the bull by the horns.

Quote:
Belkin, 3Com, Linksys etc aren't copying Cisco

Linksys is a Cisco brand. I was refering to things like D-Link. If you look at the market as a whole, not the end user line, which is small compared to the b2b line, Cisco dominates, and its competitors are basically reverse engineering and copying the product. I'm not guessing about this. It's the same thing that AMD, Cyrix and all used to do with Intel. Intel, after all, invented the field. The founder of intel invented the microchip. It's not like they're some outside force that took it over.

But in time, AMD has evolved into a serious competitor with its own ideas. This will eventually happen with D-Link et al. It's part of how capitalism works, but it needs to evolve to that point. There should not be a specific limit on the size of a corporation, only rules to prevent it from unfairly dominating its market, or squashing competition, monopolizing.

Do you take the same position on nation states? By the same logic, the US, China and the EU should not be allowed to exist, because they represent an unfair balance of power when matched against Iraq or North Korea.

Quote:
Trade existed before capitalism, trade is not a capitalist invention. And frankly you show me an economist that says they truly understand economics and I'll show you a liar.

These are neither meaningful statements nor strong arguments, they are self defeating.

Capitalism is obvioiusly a refinement of trade, as is Communism, its opposition. Evolution decided the winner already. I think this matter is settled. Now free market capitalism will face off against a communist-capitalist hybrid.

Quote:
Quote:

I suspect this someone is a Fascist Corporatist Shachtmanite cabal, which believe in a form of trotsky socialism which they want to morph capitalism into. I'm damn near sure of it.

Really this sounds to me like the Socialist that say "Socialism only fails because the Capitalists don't like it" or "The ruling classes crush any Socialist nation because they're afraid of losing power!". Capitalism, like Socialism, 'fails' on it's own merits.

Not what I'm saying at all. Capitalism had rules, these guys broke those rules, ergo capitalism needs a better enforcement policy.

Quote:
Al Qaeda give money to buy weapons or friends, soldiers, allies etc. That's not charity, even by your own definition of charity.

This is not what I'm talking about. Sure this happens, and sure, it's not charity. Al Qaeda is a charitable organization, it feeds people, funds hospitals, education, all sorts of stuff. Al Qaeda is ideologically motivated to benefit its people and islam. It's not *just* a terrorist organization. Read some of the arab press, I'm sure you can find this. The line is much grayer than we have been led to believe. Bush refers to these "so called charities which are covers for funding terrorism" but that's not really an accurate characterization either. Al Qaeda is a charity, it's also a terrorist network. It might be an evolution of human order, I'm not ruling that possibility out either.

I'm getting to the point where I got over my initial anger at the terrorists, as I try to do, and see it objectively from the outside. It's not good or evil, it just is. It's a system which is in competition with our nation-state system. Evolution will pick a winner, it's not a right or a wrong, it just is.

Quote:
When I think about social programs I think about the NHS, that despite it's problems is still the envy of the world and still outperforms private only healthcare nations hands down.

Everyone I know from your country tells me that your own private health care system kicks NHS's ass.

In America, the looney fringe of witch doctors et al kicks the ass of mainstream medicine about 90% of the time.

The Dole isn't really a socialist concept because it's not organizing or engineering society towards a goal, it's a hand out. A lot of incredibly conservative societies have a dole, a lot of socialist and leftist ones don't. They have a dole in places like Kuwait, and I think there's one in Dubai, the most capitalist society on earth, and there's one in Alaska which is arguably america's most conservative state.

the dole is capitalism's friend.

Quote:

The difference between the Liberal Academics and the Conservative Business men is that the Business men want to mould the world for their own personal gain and they actually get to do it.

If this were true, then the choice would be obvious :)

But its not. Think tanks are run by academics, and they make all the decisions. Sure, there are some leech corporations, but if you look at who's running those corporations, it's public circle people, and they aren't interested in the free market. Power mongers, sure, are everywhere, always.

We have been victim to an academic take over, there's not really any doubt about that, and sure, there are particular corporations which are part of the network. Largely I think the think tanks are seeing the advantage of the corporation as an institution, and are migrating to it, and the result is pretty horrific. Not that I'm saying that there aren't homegrown thugs in capitalism, sure, there are, that's why you need rules. But this thing with Halliburton et al is not a "corporate takeover of washington" it's a "washington takeover of corporate america"

Quote:
we need both Individualism AND Collectivism, because we, as people and society are both, not one or the other.

Maybe. I'm not saying you're wrong, because I think you might be right. I haven't ruled it out. At the moment though, I think pure unchecked capitalism is the way to go, and Dubai is my model of a functioning society. Korea is looking pretty good. Japan is looking too socialist, and anything more socialist than that is looking way too socialist, definitely including the united states.

imho

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 26, 2006 8:06 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Dreamtrove:
You posted a lot to respond to, and I don't have a lot of time.

Yeah I get that, but I didn't appreciate the "you win cause you wrote a lot" approach. "I haven't got much time I'll get back to you if and when I can" would have gone down easier.

Quote:
Linksys is a Cisco brand.

Yes you're right, Cisco bought Linksys in 2003, but it was founded 1988 and operated independently until then.

Point is they're still not copying, they're all working to produce the same product on the same standard doing the same thing the same way. Of course they're going to be the same.

Quote:
I'm not guessing about this.

I have a degree in Computer Science and I work with computers, I am not guessing either.

Quote:
There should not be a specific limit on the size of a corporation, only rules to prevent it from unfairly dominating its market, or squashing competition, monopolizing.

When they get too big they start to decide these rules. The situation you say we should have is indeed the one we do have, and the result is that many areas are dominated by monopolies and competition is already being squashed by the big players. You've already been proven wrong.

Quote:
These are neither meaningful statements nor strong arguments, they are self defeating.

I was unaware that the Roman Empire didn't trade, nor did the Greek City states. That the neolithic cultures of Europe didn't trade, which obviously they couldn't of done since my statement that Capitalism didn't invent trade as you alluded too is obviously incorrect.

As for the Economist thing, I stand by it, actually I'll modify it, if Economics is merely what comes out of Economics textbooks then Economists understand it, but it has nothing to do with reality, or Economists don't understand Economics.

Quote:
Capitalism is obvioiusly a refinement of trade, as is Communism, its opposition. Evolution decided the winner already. I think this matter is settled. Now free market capitalism will face off against a communist-capitalist hybrid.

Except Capitalism didn't win. America isn't and wasn't completely Capitalist, in fact the closest thing to true Capitalism died out in 19th when people realised allowing business to do whatever it pleased without regulation was a really bad idea, unless you liked lead in your sugar of course.

'Evolution' has already decided the outcome of Capitalism vs SOCIALIST-Capitalist hybrid.

I also grow weary of continually having to explain that Communism and Socialism aren't the same thing, I am at a loss to explain why you still don't get it.

Quote:
Not what I'm saying at all. Capitalism had rules, these guys broke those rules, ergo capitalism needs a better enforcement policy.

Capitalism doesn't have rules, that's one of the basics points of Capitalism. Free Market, deregulation, remember?

It's fairly hard too break or enforce rules that don't exist. It's inherent to Capitalism, it's not the shadowy Socialist Trotsky Uber conspiracy, it's Capitalist doing what they do, the Capitalist thing. What you're doing is scapegoating in order to protect your ideology.

Quote:
Everyone I know from your country tells me that your own private health care system kicks NHS's ass.

Then they really don't know what they are talking about. Firstly our private Health care is for remedial health care only, which is a merely a part of the service given by the NHS, which supplies remedial, preventative and emergency care. You see only remedial care is worth vast sums of cash. Good luck with your Bupa hospital if you have a car accident.

The service offered by private health care here is no better than the NHS, it is just quicker and the private hospitals have carpets and potted plants in the reception, which makes people who look only at the carpet and the plants think they're getting better service. It is quicker because it has no where near the number of patients, because it costs so much more and most people can't afford it. Which is another point, it costs substantially more, and has no where near the demands or pressures, nor does it offer as much service.

Also your chances of serving a complication in an NHS hospital are higher than in a private one. Why? Because in an NHS hospital you have a Consultant, Surgeons, Doctors and Nurses on call. In a private hospital most of the time you'll have a couple of trainee doctors. All medical staff in a private hospital are NHS trained, and near exclusively do most of their work for the NHS.

You don't get better care in a private hospital, you get faster care. This isn't because it's private and therefore better, it's because it has less patients because it's private and therefore more expensive.

Quote:
In America, the looney fringe of witch doctors et al kicks the ass of mainstream medicine about 90% of the time.

You don't have socialised health care. See what happens when you put profit above good health care?

The loony fringe runs you're country though, so what you gonna do?

Quote:
The Dole isn't really a socialist concept because it's not organizing or engineering society towards a goal, it's a hand out.

Yes it is. You are confusing Socialism with Communism again.

Also the Dole is not Capitalist and in no way is it Conservative. You're doing that thing where you perscribe everything you like to the ideology you like again.

That's not too say the Dole isn't Capitalism's friend, it is, but it's still not Capitalist, it's just one of the reasons Capitalism needs aspects of Socialism.

Quote:
We have been victim to an academic take over, there's not really any doubt about that, and sure, there are particular corporations which are part of the network.

So let me get this straight, it's not the Conservative Business men, the guys that are the most powerful individuals at the heads of the most powerful organisations that have something to gain from influencing government, that are influencing government, it is, in fact, Liberal Academic think tanks. In the most Right-wing Conservative Western Nation the Liberals have taken over?

Well I must say they've done a really good job, because strangely the only person able to see it is a particular Conservative who has a proven track record of Scapegoating Liberals and Socialists for the worlds ill...

Quote:
But this thing with Halliburton et al is not a "corporate takeover of washington" it's a "washington takeover of corporate america"

Yes, corporations paying off politicians to get concessions from Government can be characterised as Government take over of Corporations.

Or maybe not.

I really don't understand your consistent finger pointing at Liberals, Socialists and Government. Every time Capitalism falters the Socialists did it.

America isn't as good as it could be because the Liberal Think Tanks and Trotsky Socialists have conspired against American ideals.

Corporations misbehave because of the Government regulations that were created to stop such things.

Why do you have such a blind spot that prevents you from seeing that sometimes the Government isn't evil and sometimes, actually, corporation are?

(oh and kids I use evil in the "who cares who it hurts I wants it" vein, sure I could of been more accurate and verbose, but really my post is long enough as it is)

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 26, 2006 8:13 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"Would it be more accurate to say, "oxytocin levels respond to an individual's perception of fairness and trust in addition to cooperation..."?'
Strangely, when oxytocin levels are artificially increased (injection) they cause feelings of trust. That feeling caused by oxytocin is the reward. It's the subtle perceptions going on in the mind that do the evaluation. And while some people can fake a persona or tell a good story that generates short-term trust, experience over time will prove it out, or not.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 26, 2006 8:44 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Strangely, when oxytocin levels are artificially increased (injection) they cause feelings of trust.

Oh, Crap! That statement just pushed MY paranoia button.(minutes later) After a quick google, I'm not quite so worried. Unless someone can develop a time release aerosol version, the short effective period looks to limit the "Mass mind control" possibilities.

Quote:
That feeling caused by oxytocin is the reward. It's the subtle perceptions going on in the mind that do the evaluation. And while some people can fake a persona or tell a good story that generates short-term trust, experience over time will prove it out, or not.

I agree in general, but think there should be a "usually" in that statement right before "...prove it out...". People's upbringing, beliefs, and biases sometimes shape their perceptions to the point at which they will ignore experience and fall back on what they were taught. Maybe just a nitpick.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 26, 2006 8:56 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Well, that's why I put in the 80% figure (my estimate for this culture). And these responses are trainable, like Pavlov's salivating dogs. That's a sad observation about US culture. It works really hard to wipe out a whole area of human emotions like trust and inclusion. People are to be 'hardened' into viewing life as a zero-sum competition.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 26, 2006 9:35 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Assuming "good" is what increases oxytocin, that raises a whole bunch of questions and comments. Maybe you can pull them into a coherent whole.

Is "good" like "fear" or "disgust"... is there is some sort of a rapid but complex data processing that goes on in our reptilian brain, where past experiences are rapidly compared to the current situation (some sort of shuttling between the amygdala, the hippocampus and who knows what else) which "decides" and "reacts" before we're even fully aware of our own perceptions?

There are studies that show that children who grew up with pain sense pain more in later life. Children growing up in stressful circumstances, rather than being more robust, tend to be more fearful. Is there some similar situation with oxytocin- Are who children grow up in an oxytocin-stimulating environment more likely to produce oxytocin in later life?

What about the other "reward" neurotransmitter- dopamine, the addiction chemical? It seems as if there is something of a contradiction between the two reward systems: dopamine, I believe, tends to cause people to repeat behavior to achieve "exciting but intermittent rewards" (learning) while oxytocin seems to work in stable social situations. The reason why I'm wondering is that intermittant reward is a very powerful training tool and seems to be the basis of capitalism, which would be based on dopamine. Can oxytocin offer as powerful a reward, or can a system be designed that would involve BOTH reward systems w/o violating either?

Are there other rewarding neurotranmsitters?

And then, the social aspects- how does one create and maintain a social/ economic system that enhances oxytocin release? Even assuming that MOST people are producing oxytocin at higher levels due to a conducive environment, SOME people just by random chance will not produce much, or be dopamine junkies or adrenaline junkies, or be sheer sociopaths. But power, as I noted before, has a tendency to concentrate (positive feedback system). There needs to be something created that will interrupt that positive feedback. I've read of studies that show when people can confront cheaters DIRECTLY, cheating has a tendency to decrease. Other studies say that the greatest number of people that a person can respond to as individuals is about 100. But once someone gets out of reach of direct confrontaiton... like Bill Gates... it's too late for small groups and oxytocin. (Or do we set the adrenaline junkies on the dopamime junkies?)

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 26, 2006 9:52 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Hey SignyM

All excellent questions most of which I didn't think of myself. And the answer is, I have no clue.

I've just been reading about oxytocin in the last maybe five months. There are scattered studies pointing in the same direction but no overarching information synthesis.

I was kinda wondering what would happen if you could inject it into, say Ted Bundy - or someone like him. Would he feel something he never felt before? Is that why sociopaths tend to be male? (Oxytocin is the uterine contraction/ milk production/ bonding and nurturing hormone in women.)

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 26, 2006 10:02 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I'm also drawing on game theory and that infamous "Prisoner's Dilemma" tournament that U of T does every few years. "Tit for tat" works best between two individuals, and that other cooperative programs work best in multiple- player modes but only if the cooperators reach a threshold. The issue that I see is that social dynamics tend to favor the sociopathic in ANY society, and the dynamic seems to be that the power/economic pyramid grows taller and taller until revolution takes it down, and then the whole thing starts all over again. (The most egalitarian socieites- correct me if I'm wrong- seem to be small, ammenable to direct confrontation.)

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 26, 2006 10:11 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I've been noticing the social dynamic myself.
Unfortunately I haven't really studied it and will probbaly not get to it until I retire.

What I wonder is - human technology tends to create an excess and concentrate it. Perhaps it's like the pile of fruit that distorts chimpanzee society. All these rewards worked pretty well during human evolution, but became counter-productive as excess became routine.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 26, 2006 10:24 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I don't think excess/ concentrated production creates strife... or, let me put it this way, it doens't disappear in conditions of uiversal poverty. I recall reading a study that compared two displaced populations - the Tarahumara(?) in Mexico and another in Africa (I forget which ones). Altho similar in many respects (population size, poverty etc) the response of the first society was CLOSER cooperation and the response of the second was complete fragmentation- a Hobbesian nightmare.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 26, 2006 10:58 AM

Oxytocin is also released during and after sex (along with prolactin in males, prolactin makes you sleepy, that's why men fall asleep after the act ladies).

Men tend to have more systemising characters and Women more Empthasising, add increased levels of Adrenaline and Testosterone I'd guess that's why Sociopaths more often tend to be male. Males are more aggressive and more likely to objectify other people.

Quote:
What I wonder is - human technology tends to create an excess and concentrate it. Perhaps it's like the pile of fruit that distorts chimpanzee society. All these rewards worked pretty well during human evolution, but became counter-productive as excess became routine.

You know they build vital parts of washing machines out of plastic when they'd be more or less the same price, work as well and last much much longer if made from metal. They make them out of plastic so that it will fail and people will have to buy the latest model.

Or Computers, they get faster all the time, which is great except that means that expensive machine you bought last year is now obsolete.

It's called built in obsolesence. By design the product must fail to let something newer fill it's place.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 26, 2006 1:04 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Too much to think about ... I'm going to go do something easier now ...

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 26, 2006 1:10 PM

Like talking to Kaneman?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 26, 2006 2:03 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Naw, like reading an abstruse instrument manual.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 26, 2006 4:52 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

If I have the chance I'll get back to this later. It is possible to have societies - even large 'technological' ones - that don't have war.

Is it possible that the direction of societal development is dependent on accidents? Like the peaceable baboons? Or the baboon-like chimps?

-----------
My neighbor gets literally hundreds of hummingbirds to her yard, including rare ones that are supposed to be transient but stick around. What she noticed is that with just one feeder, an aggressive male will dominate the territory and there will be few hummingbirds. With three well-filled feeders, there are too many visitors and too many locations for an individual to dominate, and so, many feast together.

The thing about the baboons was that the meat supply (at the dump) was in a small location and easily dominated by a few aggressive males. Once those males died (of TB they caught from the meat), the society became peaceable. And males that came in from other tribes came in small enough numbers to have to conform to those ways.

The fruit pile made male chimps act like - baboons. Once the fruit was distributed back out, peace was restored.

Maybe there is a particular combination of numbers that makes male dominance and aggressive societies more likely, and the other way around.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 27, 2006 3:44 AM

Quote:
human technology tends to create an excess and concentrate it.

I think it's important to remember that humans aren't just monkeys, they're rats. monkeys are rats/mice, and are decended from some monkey/mouse creature is my understanding.

Pack Rats store stuff as the result of a hoarding instinct. Winters, droughts, famines, all cause the 'random scarcity' problem. If you live like a cow, and then one day there's nothing, then you die like a cow.

We are natural pack rats. We hoarde. Just watch what happens when there's something like the beenie babies. Everyone is running around to catch 'em all because if they don't, they might not have them.

Think back to the animal days and what those items might have been, even for early humans. Food, is #1, and then medicines, clothing, building materials. Especially as human populations grew, scarcity was more and more of a problem. The materialistic society was born.

In order to shed the mental illness that results from allowing this instinct to take over completely, humans need to learn to control the monkey, and the rat.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 27, 2006 6:59 AM

CAVALIER

I’d like to look at this from another angle: why do people care whether something is good or evil?

It occurs to me that people would generally like to be known for certain character traits e.g. hardworking, generous, honest, always repays a debt etc.

And they would generally like not to be known for certain different traits e.g. dishonest , treacherous etc.

Being thought to posses the first set of traits makes people more likely to be friendly, do you favours, trust you and so on. People are more likely to do things for you, perhaps because they think it is more likely that you will do something in return for them later.

The second set of traits tends to have the reverse effect.

So whatever kind of person you actually are, you should want the first reputation, as indeed everybody does.

How can you convince people that you deserve that reputation? Well, you can try acting in accordance with it, at least when other people are around. You can extol the first set of character traits, and damn the second set. You can call such things evil, and demand that people be punished if they act like that. You might even go so far as to risk punishing them yourself.

All this would be true if you were an utter sociopath, but if you can persuade yourself, it makes the act a lot easier.

So, evil is that behaviour which it is in your interests to loudly condemn e.g. treachery, murder, theft and, in some times and places, homophobia, racism, slavery, homosexuality, atheism, Catholicism, rescuing Jews, protecting kulaks, supporting George Bush, supporting Bill Clinton, Thatcher , Blair etc

This is a slightly cynical view, but it does explain a lot, especially the fact that no one ever considers an act evil when they decide to do it. At the most they call it a necessary evil ie less evil than the alternative.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 27, 2006 7:38 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"No one considers it an act of evil ..."

I'm not sure I agree with that. There are people who don't seem to make the analysis at all (sociopaths), and people who say 'sure it's wrong, but what the heck !' ('sinners').

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 27, 2006 9:25 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Interesting point about "hoarding". I don't think apes "hoard". Living in a tropical climate, where food is available most of the year and stored food would simply spoil easily, "hoarding" doesn't have any survival benefit.

OTOH, haording only really became possible (for humans( (1) when they moved out of tropical areas and (2) with the advent of agriculture, when it truly became possible to gather far more than you could eat. There would defnitely be a survival advanatge to the people who could hoard and protect more. But I'm not sure if "hoarding" has been around long enough to become some sort of ingrained response.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 27, 2006 9:59 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

So... where are we? We've moved from a discussion of "good" and "evil" to "how to create a society that is 'good'", assuming that "good" means a society which promotes trust and fairness amongst it members. However, this is complicated by the fact that there are other reward neurotransmitters (dopamine) and other behavior drivers like testosterone and even (possibly) some inherent hoarding behavior.

Going back to the computer models that create different "life-forms" from the same basic code, I think the issue is that while humans ON THE AVERAGE behave certain ways, aberrant individuals can gain extraordinary power once society grows past a certain size. And the answer is perhaps not to control the AVERAGE behavior of humans but to set up costraints/ negative feeback loops that limit the cocentration of power.

If that is what we really want, then how to do?

In past societies, the paradigm was that sacrifice on the part of many was necessary but that reward is part of the deal. In the capitalist paradigm, NO behavioral constraints are necessary because the invisible hand, or Darwinian selection, will create a balance. "Greed is good". Both approaches ("Be good" versus "Be greedy") have failed to halt inevitable concentration of power leading to revolution.

Needs more thought....

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 27, 2006 1:03 PM

Or maybe just limit the size of the powerbase.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 27, 2006 3:31 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

To get back to baboons for a bit -

I thought these were interesting -

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_16_165/ai_n6110153
"In 1982, the most aggressive Forest Troop males began foraging in a garbage pit at a tourist lodge in the reserve. The next year, infected meat in the dump killed all these dominant males, so only the troop's relatively easygoing males survived. By 1986, aggressive behavior in the troop had declined markedly.
The most interesting observations began in 1993. By that time, the troop contained high-ranking immigrant males. From 1993 to 1996, these males behaved as cooperatively as the original set of lower-ranking male survivors had ..."

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/13/science/13BABO.html?ex=1162094400&en
=a5b0df825390f6b7&ei=5070
"Dr. Sapolsky - said that the Forest Troop baboons probably felt as good as they acted. Hormone samples from the monkeys showed far less evidence of stress in even the lowest-ranking individuals, when contrasted with baboons living in more rancorous societies.
The new-fashioned Forest Troop is no United Nations, or even the average frat house. Its citizens remain highly aggressive and argumentative, and the males still obsess over hierarchy. "We're talking about baboons here," said Dr. Sapolsky.
What most distinguishes this congregation from others is that the males resist taking out their bad moods on females and underlings."
and
http://www.peacefulsocieties.org/NAR06/060216gen.html
"The culture of peacefulness in the troop remained intact—as it does to the present time. (2006)
The author suspects that this unique baboon culture is probably not actively passed on to successive generations, but that it emerges and continues from the ways the residents continue to act. He speculates that the females in the troop, with only the less aggressive males to deal with, became less wary and more relaxed, more willing to take chances with incoming juveniles from other troops. As a result, the immigrant juvenile males also relax the patterns they learned in their natal troops. Treated well by the resident females, they adopt the cultural patterns of their new group."

In other words, the fundamental culture of the troop permanently changed due to a fluke. It was all in the initial conditions.

-------------

In the baboon and chimp societies, and with the hummingbirds, it seems to be about the relative aggression (kind of r x f) of males to everyone else.

The chimps and baboons put up with the males b/c the rest of the group has a permanent affiliation to each other and to their territory. So they don't just conclude - oh, they're being jerks, let's go somewhere else so they can be jerks on their own time.

So when the ratio is made right, the pacifists do determine the nature of the society.

But with people, money multiplies power, so a very small number can dominate the conditions everyone else lives under. Given the positive feedback on the cycle - power breeds control which breeds more power - the selection for sociopaths who prefer dopamine to oxytocin increases. ???

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 28, 2006 3:47 PM

Cavalier

Sure, this is pretty much how Lao Tse views it. Evil is usually created as a side effect of defining good. Anything outside of that becomes evil. But that's what I call "subjective evil"

There is also "objective evil" which is what Schweitzer is talking about.

The Earth is tugging on you. If you go into the forest, and sit real still for a long time, you can feel it. The Earth is pushing you to behave in a way which is to its benefit. Because, afterall, what is life? Life is the cooperation of its components, whether they be molecules, cells or whole life forms.

A cell would behave somewhat independently, it has its own capability for thought, action, etc. but in general, it feels the tug that it is part of something greater, ie. you, and tries to act in your benefit. If we behave in a way that is detrimental to the Earth, then we have become a cancer, and the Earth will try to stomp us out, and one or the other will perish if the relationship is not brought back into balance.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 29, 2006 2:28 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

CITIZEN

Quote:
Or maybe just limit the size of the powerbase.

I don't see how that's possible. The other seemingly inevitable march of human society is that the units get bigger and bigger: families to tribes, tribes to cities, cities to kingdoms and kingdoms to empires. And as the underlying organization get bigger it is capable of supporting a taller hierarchy. But, if you can think of how to do this, I'd be interested.

RUE- The baboon tribe seems to wrap up game theory with the hormone set approach along with some real-life social engineering: I heard of an anti-gang program near Boston that focused on taking the "enforcers" out of action, because even in a gang there are gangbangers and then there are the others. Once the enforcers were sent off to state prison, things calmed down immediately. So all we have to do is get rid of the irredeemable assholes.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 29, 2006 4:39 AM